Walk through many communities in Kenya today and you are likely to encounter a footprint of the alcohol industry. A water project here, a youth empowerment initiative there, or a road safety campaign on the billboard outside town. And this is only on the surface. The alcohol industry has extended its reach into academic scholarships, farming programs supporting smallholder sorghum farmers, and much more; seamlessly threading itself through nearly every layer of Kenya’s social development landscape. On the surface, these are real efforts that appear to reflect a genuine commitment to “give back.” But there may be more to the story. What if these corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities are not simply acts of charity, but part of a broader strategy that shapes how communities think, what society accepts, and ultimately, what governments choose to regulate?

At this point, it is useful to step back and ask: how should we understand CSR? Two dominant perspectives offer useful insight. The first is the stakeholder theory, which suggests that companies engage in CSR not only to create value for shareholders, but also to respond to the expectations of communities, governments, and other stakeholders on whom they depend. The second is the more critical political economy perspective of CSR, which views CSR  as a strategic tool used to protect business interests, manage reputational and regulatory risk, and maintain influence within policy and regulatory spaces.

Recent evidence from a case study of the alcohol industry in the Philippines reinforces this tension. It shows that CSR is often framed in two ways: simultaneously, as a contribution to development and public good, and as a strategy for reputation management, market expansion, and policy influence. In other words, what appears to be “giving back” may also function as a form of soft power. Slowly shaping narratives around responsibility, normalizing industry presence in public health spaces, and subtly influencing which forms of regulations are considered necessary or acceptable.

The feel-good story we’re told

The alcohol industry in Kenya has positioned itself as a key contributor to the country’s development agenda. Its sustainability platforms showcase investments in water, education, sustainable agriculture, and environmental conservation. From numerous water projects and farmer-led conservation initiatives to university scholarships, the narrative is clear: business can be a force for good. This message is reinforced at the highest levels. Sustainability reports often feature endorsements from government officials and global experts, framing the industry’s activities as aligned with national priorities such as climate resilience, agricultural transformation, and the Sustainable Development Goals. To be fair, some of these initiatives deliver real and tangible benefits. Yet the uncomfortable question remains: whose interests are ultimately being served?

When development meets supply chains

We can take East African Breweries Limited’s investment in sorghum farming as an example. At face value, supporting tens of thousands of smallholder farmers looks like inclusive economic development. Yet, on the flipside, it also helps secure a stable, low-cost supply chain to produce affordable beer brands. The story becomes more complex when viewed through the lens of the “killing the goose that laid the golden eggs” case. When tax policy changes in 2013 disrupted the sorghum beer market, the consequences extended beyond business. They destabilized farmer livelihoods and exposed how deeply intertwined public policy, corporate interests, and community welfare had become.

The Rudisha program: Harm reduction or market recovery?

Consider the Rudisha program, which supports the return and recycling of alcohol bottles. On one level, it promotes environmental sustainability and circular economy principles by reducing waste and promoting responsible production. At the same time, it reinforces core business operations by strengthening distribution systems, lowering input costs, and ensuring that products continue to circulate efficiently in the market.

A similar duality is evident in the Raising the Bar Initiative. Introduced in the wake of COVID-19, the program provided financial support and hygiene supplies to bars and small hospitality businesses, presenting itself as a lifeline for struggling entrepreneurs and a contribution to public safety. Beyond this immediate support, however, it also played a critical role in stabilizing and reviving alcohol retail networks, ensuring that key consumption channels remained open and functional. In both cases, the boundary between public good and business interest becomes increasingly blurred. What is framed as corporate responsibility also reinforces the very systems that sustain consumption.

Shifting the conversation: from systems to individuals

A central feature of EABL’s sustainability messaging is its emphasis on “positive drinking”—a narrative that encourages consumers to take personal responsibility for when, and how much they drink. On the surface, this appears both reasonable and necessary. However, this framing performs a subtler and powerful function: it shifts attention away from the broader structural drivers of alcohol-related harm. Issues such as the affordability of alcohol, the high density of retail outlets, and the extensive reach of marketing and sponsorships often recede into the background, while the burden of responsibility is placed squarely on the individual. This pattern is consistent with global evidence: when industries foreground responsibility, they often simultaneously deflect attention from regulatory measures known to be more effective at reducing harm.

Building trust and access

CSR does more than generate goodwill; it also creates access. Through its sustainability agenda, EABL positions itself as a credible development partner by highlighting partnerships with government, contributions to Environmental, Social, and Governance frameworks, and participation in policy dialogues, often reinforced by endorsements from high-level actors. At the same time, its involvement in high-visibility national initiatives —such as funding climate and reforestation efforts aligned with government priorities —extends its influence beyond community projects into broader national development spaces. These relationships are strategic because they align with public priorities and engage political leadership. This allows the industry to inevitably secure a seat at the policy table, making it easier to shape how public health challenges are framed and which solutions are ultimately prioritized.

CSR as brand building: Sports, youth, and lifestyle

Beyond development projects, CSR increasingly intersects with brand visibility and lifestyle marketing. Through the sponsorship of major sporting events, it embeds its brands within the fabric of national identity, youth culture, and aspirational lifestyles. Even initiatives framed as promoting inclusion, such as supporting women’s participation in sports, can simultaneously expand brand reach into new and emerging consumer groups. This reflects a deliberate long-term investment in cultivating future consumers and normalizing alcohol within everyday social and cultural spaces.

Not just charity, but a long-term strategy

Across these examples, there is a clear pattern that within the alcohol industry, CSR operates on multiple, interconnected levels. It enhances corporate reputation by presenting the alcohol industry as a socially responsible actor, while simultaneously supporting market expansion through building brand loyalty and normalizing consumption. It strengthens supply chains through investments in farmers and production systems, and it creates pathways for policy influence by opening access to decision-making spaces. This is what makes the alcohol industry’s CSR a commercial determinant of health. It does not merely respond to health challenges; it actively shapes the environments, relationships, and systems through which those challenges are produced and sustained.

When CSR replaces policy

The critical risk lies in how these activities are perceived. When companies are widely seen as “doing the right thing,” it can create the impression that formal regulation is less necessary. Questions then begin to shift: why increase taxes if companies are already supporting farmers? Why restrict marketing if they promote responsible drinking? Why limit availability if they are investing in communities? Yet global evidence consistently shows that the most effective measures for reducing alcohol-related harm are structural, including higher taxes, restrictions on marketing, and reduced availability. By contrast, CSR often emphasizes voluntary actions that are less effective, subtly diverting attention from stronger regulatory approaches and reshaping the policy conversation.

So… giving back or taking control?

The reality is more complex than a simple choice between the two. CSR initiatives by the alcohol industry in Kenya do deliver tangible social and economic benefits. At the same time, they reinforce market systems, build political and social capital, shape public narratives, and influence policy environments. Recognizing this dual role is not about dismissing CSR altogether, but about understanding its full implications and engaging with it more critically.

Where do we go from here?

If Kenya is to respond effectively to alcohol-related harm, a more critical approach to industry engagement is essential. This means establishing and enforcing clear conflict-of-interest guidelines within public health policy, strengthening regulation of alcohol marketing, including sponsorships, enhancing transparency around CSR activities, and investing in independent, evidence-based public health interventions. Ultimately, safeguarding population health requires reducing reliance on the goodwill of industries whose profits depend on increased consumption.

Final thoughts

Alcohol industry CSR tells a compelling story, one of partnership, progress, and shared value. But beneath that narrative lies another, less visible story: one of strategy, influence, and control. The key question is not simply whether alcohol companies are doing good, but whether, in the process, they are also shaping a system in which doing good aligns seamlessly with doing business.